Doxa

I just wanted to see what is would be like to mix and match ethical systems for fun and see what conclusions could be drawn from them. If you want to give examples of such hybrids please do. This thread is more to discover and discuss rather than debate, or at least that is my hope.

I guess I will start with mixing my virtue ethics with deontology. Mixing an emphasis of traits and habits while giving intrinsic value to the individual. The closest example for me would have to be the Stoic (big shock). But I wonder, would the stoic be willing to kill under the right circumstances. I believe Marcus Aurelius waged multiple wars as emperor that were incredibally ruthless. But the man himself has kind and gentle and hated war as well as having the reputation of a stoic philosopher king. Wouldn't that contradict deontology or is it simply because it has greater focus on the self.

mdsimpson92 wrote:I just wanted to see what is would be like to mix and match ethical systems for fun and see what conclusions could be drawn from them. If you want to give examples of such hybrids please do. This thread is more to discover and discuss rather than debate, or at least that is my hope.

I guess I will start with mixing my virtue ethics with deontology. Mixing an emphasis of traits and habits while giving intrinsic value to the individual. The closest example for me would have to be the Stoic (big shock). But I wonder, would the stoic be willing to kill under the right circumstances. I believe Marcus Aurelius waged multiple wars as emperor that were incredibally ruthless. But the man himself has kind and gentle and hated war as well as having the reputation of a stoic philosopher king. Wouldn't that contradict deontology or is it simply because it has greater focus on the self.

I used to think about philosophy as though I was re building carburetors.

Christian ethics is based upon virtue, but it's also deontology. I don't think those a mix I think they go together anyway. Deontology is not just dull rule keeping. That's what it's enemies have reduced it to (the constitutionalists). It's really about duty and obligation, and virtue is the outcome of doing one's duty and keeping one's obligations.

Have you read McIntyre? After Virtue? you may have told me but I can't remember.

Metacrock wrote:I used to think about philosophy as though I was re building carburetors. Christian ethics is based upon virtue, but it's also deontology. I don't think those a mix I think they go together anyway. Deontology is not just dull rule keeping. That's what it's enemies have reduced it to (the constitutionalists). It's really about duty and obligation, and virtue is the outcome of doing one's duty and keeping one's obligations.Have you read McIntyre? After Virtue? you may have told me but I can't remember.

Yes, I have had the pleasure of owning the book (third edition). Though because I am in China I don't have the ability to call upon it (though I do have Anna Karenina and the Count of Monte Christo done) It was my second ethics work that i have read after Kant's Metaphysics of morals.. Utlitarianism never had much appeal to me though I will say that rule utilitarianism at least make a worthy attempt to take away a lot of the more extreme conclusions that can be drawn from it, even if it inevitably fails due to either redundancy or contradiction.

That being said I remember MacIntyre also giving examples of virtue hybrids with utilitarianism. Most specifically with Benjamin Franklin. Also, I wonder about that potential contradiction with Marcus Aurelius being willing to kill so many yet still have a generally deontological/virtue system. I mean sure virtue ethics alone could allow that witin a culture (according to my ethics professor.)

Edit:By the way, normally fleet is here to balance out our enthusiasm. We probably should invite someone like Kane or Monolith (is that name write) or Quantum Troll to balance us so we don't bash utilitarianism too much without defense.

I have never actually studied a formal category called "hybrids" in ethics. I do know that Kant must be one. There are aspects of Kant's work that are clearly teleological and yet he plants his moral decision making paradigm firmly within the realm of duty and obligation.

I think one version of the Categorical Imperative must be teleological: the one that says "how would it be if everyone did this?"

that was me. I forgot I was in mod mode.

Its not a formal term. It just fits given the various forms. Like how rule utilitarianism is a mix of deontology and utilitarianism. Or how we had a conversation once of a mixed deontological theory that had some similarity to utilitarianism but without the horrific implications that are possible.

P.S. how is the Hume guy going?

mdsimpson92 wrote:Its not a formal term. It just fits given the various forms. Like how rule utilitarianism is a mix of deontology and utilitarianism. Or how we had a conversation once of a mixed deontological theory that had some similarity to utilitarianism but without the horrific implications that are possible.

P.S. how is the Hume guy going?

his name is Tyrho so I just his membership activated. Waiting for him to show.

Metacrock wrote:

mdsimpson92 wrote:Its not a formal term. It just fits given the various forms. Like how rule utilitarianism is a mix of deontology and utilitarianism. Or how we had a conversation once of a mixed deontological theory that had some similarity to utilitarianism but without the horrific implications that are possible.

P.S. how is the Hume guy going?

his name is Tyrho so I just his membership activated. Waiting for him to show.

Good to hear. Also, I am not sure that Kan't really does take teleology into account. When using the categorical imperative, I don't remember him taking consequences as a primary factor in decision making.

the whole concept of "what if everyone did this" Is consequence oriented. ask it another way "what would be the consequence of everyone doing this?"

I enjoy the ethics of Objectivism. It's a fair mix of utilitarianism and deontology.